between the united states and the soviet union back in the early 60s. what they have in common is that both countries were clearly adversaries of the united states. that the president has also been cleared in his dealings with iran he's been unwilling to rely on any trust with the iranian leadership in fact the president has said his approach to the situation has been to distrust and verify. that's why this deal would not have gone forward have iran not agreed to cooperate with the most intrusive set of inspections that ever been imposed on the country. and the reason for that is that this agreement requires iran to make some significant commitment including things like reducing their giving stockpile by 90%. disconnecting 13,000 centrifuges and essentially gutting the core of their plutonium reactor. these are all significant commitments and each of them is

necessary before any sort of sanctions relief will be offered. so the stakes of those commitments are high and the president is unwilling to just trust the iranian regime that they're going to follow through on those commitments. in fact, the president will insist that the iaea be given to access they need to verify that iran has followed through with those commitments. once that has occurred in sanctions relief is something it would be the national committee would be prepared to offer. >> the president talked about empathy as being a key to diplomacy and one is that something people talk about tomorrow? >> i wouldn't anticipate an extensive discussion. what the president was referring to an end because i do think it's safe to assume that the reason that the iranian regime reached the calculus and that they should cooperate with the international committee to obtain sanctions relief is that

they were under significant pressure because of the international sanctions that have been imposed on the country another economy. and that at least is a rational reaction of a leader of the country when sensing that the people of iran are eager for a great economic opportunity to take steps that would expand the opportunities and allow iran to least haltingly more to engage with the international community. that wasn't describing the motivations of the list of around the president described those decisions that iran from that conclusion that iran leader had reached as a logical one. but again the president is not at all in a position of trustinn iran to follow through on these commitments. the president has insisted any agreement, that this agreement include verification of iran's compliance by the international experts at the iaea.

rebecca, i will give you the last one. [inaudible] does the white house support the cyber information sharing bill, go to vote in the senate this week? >> rebecca, the administration at the beginning of this year put forward a series of specific bills that we believe that congress should pass address our concerns about cybersecurity. these are three different pieces of legislation that we se sent t there that included legislative language about what exactly congress should pass. one of those bills was information related to information sharing that eventually would allow law enforcement officials and national security officials the ability to freely share information with the private sector about threats to detect in cyberspace and vice versa that private sector entities who are either the victims or aware

of attempted cyber malfeasance could share that information with law enforcement, national security officials so that other private sector entities could adapt their computer systems and defend against those attacks. so we have gone to great lengths to try to encourage that kind of information sharing, and as i understand that that's the goal of the bill that is currently being considered by the united states send it. but for exact position on the issue i will follow-up with you on the but ultimately that's the goal that we have strongly supported for sometime now, and we strongly urge congress to take action in that regard but let me get back to on a specific piece specific piece of legislation. thanks a lot everybody. >> happy birthday to the president. >> i'll pass it on.

>> the senate at a break now for weekly party meetings but when they return to continue work on a bill aimed at improving cybersecurity in the u.s. through enhanced sharing of information about threats. majority leader mitch mcconnell filed a cloture monday evening and he told members that held the second finished up work on the ability for their five week summer break. live coverage of the senate when members return at 2:15 p.m., just about 10 minutes from now oon c-span2. until then here's a conversation from this mornings "washington journal" about last night republican presidential forum in new hampshire. >> host: thank you for being here your let's get started the what did you think? any candidate or which candidates i should say stood out to you? >> caller: they all did. i sat in the second row behind the candidates and as i watched i was thinking what a wonderful opportunity this was for the

republican party to show off a deeper field than i can remember going six months into a primary. standouts, i like carly fiorina because she gives a shadow to the innovator for putting this thing on. other than that they were all remarkable. you guys help with the three senators who stayed in washington. that was a little time to let issue but otherwise it was fine and i think it improved the position of all the candidates who were there. >> host: your headline in the union leader this morning, america needs the gop. what do you mean? why was this for an important, do you think? >> guest: i think it was important for the three early voting states, dr. hatchett, iowa and south carolina. the reason that this happened

was because fox as you know announced they were limiting the field to top 10 candidates on the basis of polls, which may be okay in february to begin before the primary but six or seven months before it's absurd and doesn't present to either the three states or the nation for broader field of candidates. so america ca, meet the gop's bg are not going to me than if they only watch the 9:00 program thursday night. they do have an earlier tv cable or thanksgiving to the table for lower tier candidates. i talked with former u.s. senator who is in the audience last night and he was expressing great frustration and really wonderment that the network could leave off the stage one of the most knowledgeable u.s. senator on foreign policy, lindsey graham, who is looking

to post at the moment, and quite possibly the governor of ohio where their so-called debate is going is going to be held, john kasich, both outstanding, and carly fiorini, quite an accomplished businesswoman who's on the bubble of giving in or not. so we wanted america to see the broader field and i think that was accomplished, thanks largely to c-span's showing it nationally. >> host: what you think of a forum versus the debate and why did you organize it that way with the candidates taking questions one on one for five to seven minutes in a couple of rounds? >> guest: yes. we wanted to make it easier for the candidates to accept our invitation. and as you may know, republican national committee has specified a limited number of debates, and this wasn't one of them. if we had had a debate with all

the candidates questioning each other, then those candidates according to the rnc would not be allowed in any other official debate. frankly, i think of a couple of big name candidates had said to have without, we're going to do a debate in new hampshire, the rnc would've folded its tent and let them in. but the great thing about the event last night, i think it was more informative and more in depth with questions to the candidates than you're likely to see on thursday night. we did two hours with 14 candidates, two rounds of questions about for five minutes in the first round at a couple of minutes in the second round. i was in my terrible math on the way in this morning, and fox has 10 candidates, 90 minutes. well, how much time does each candidate did in when you come after introductions, et cetera,

et cetera? it's going to be interesting to watch i think we're going to come out as having more content and really in depth questions and answers than the fox thing. >> host: did you miss donald trump not being on the stage? >> guest: not at all. not at all. a couple of the national media bed with that fact but most of the reporting i've seen was in depth on what they candidates who were there said. i was also as i sat in that row trying to think of what the chemistry possible he would've been like if trump had been debate and i think it would've been totally different and distraction rather than attraction of the solid candidates. so no, to tell you the truth, i don't understand his reasoning. he doesn't think we're going to endorse him and, therefore, he's not come to our party, makes no sense. he might be sort of criticizing

himself for not participating because we got a lot of coverage around the country, thanks to you. and we had an extraordinary number of commercial television stations, including to get in new hampshire at the local npr and new england cable news. it got out there to a lot of people, and as much as you and i and the folks here at nu our and other places follow political business closely the average joe or jane, it's summertime for one thing and then to have to get the kids back to school and they're not really paying great in depth attention to this thing. trump is out there. people know trump and, therefore, he's getting some recognition but this was an opportunity for the voters to ask the candidates questions. we did that by putting up on our site and the cosponsors cite a

list of topics and asks voters to weigh in on what topics you are interested in. there was a good solid representation. jackie who was the moderator managed on-the-fly to ask some great follow up questions after the planned ones were over -- jack keith. >> host: do you think you have to residents miss donald trump on the stage? a poll yesterday before the forum took place that showed the billionaire was a in the granite state 26%. >> guest: polls in august 2015 mean zip to me, and i hope to my newspaper. i rap the knuckles of reporters when they're doing stories at this stage where they try to put in some leading in the polls. polls at this point, senator

graham said brad pickett get in the top 10 just based on name recognition but i don't think brad is running. >> host: okay. we want to turn to our viewers and have them take, have you take the comment and a question as well. we have a fourth line set aside for new hampshire residents. want to hear from you as well. lease is up first in miami, florida, an independent. >> caller: thanks so much for taking my call. i've been ringing nonstop since the show started. >> host: glad you got in, and we did appreciate debate and i appreciate the format of your show. i'm not going a couple people because i'm sitting here thinking that's what i was fingered the first in what is it is also disappointed when i think of it more about marco rubio. well every facet of his politics may not be something that everybody agrees with, i find that every time he opens up his mouth is so on point, so well-informed. he's so articulate and he makes

a great deal of sense. and i would like to be hearing more comments about him and i certainly hope he makes it to the thursday night debate. regarding carly, you know, i haven't heard her speak very much, but she sounds very strong, considering her background i about her ability to speak with people in other nations ended up to take care of things, she strikes me as a woman with a peccable critical thinking skills, conflict resolution skills, the kind of skills that really do matter. unlike trump who could also be very spot on about things that the likes he cuts right to the somerset right to the chase but i'm very concerned about the fact that he can excuse the expression, this is people off the weigh way he does when he cn actually, you know, be taking care of our country and not be setting something up for us

because of his inability to have the kind of decor but i think summit in politics needs to have. >> host: we will leave it there and have joe mcquaid respond to what you have to say. >> guest: interesting. i think what we did last night was showcase both senator rubio and -- >> you can see this program any time on c-span.org. sin is returning from their weekly party lunches and they will continue work on the cybersecurity legislation. diate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: not the senator from new mexico, the senator from florida. mr. president, i rise in strong support of s.754, the cybersecurity information-sharing act. i want to thank my colleagues, senator burr and vice chairwoman feinstein for their leadership on this legislation. this bill was over-wellcomeingly approved by 14-1 vote in the senate select committee on

intelligence in march. enacting legislation to confront the accumulating dangers of cyber threats must be among the highest national security priorities of the congress. cyber attacks on our nation have become disturbingly common. more recently, it was the office of personnel management. a few weeks before that, it was the pentagon network, the white house, and the state department. before that it was anthem and sonny, jussewnsony, just to nam. the president as our nation's commander in chief must do his part to deter the belligerence of our adversaries in cyberspace. the threats from china, russia, north korea, and iran, not to mention isil and al qaeda are steadily growing in number and severity. our national security leadership has warned us repeatedly that we could face a cyber attack against our nation's critical

infrastructure in the not-too-distant future. i believe our response to such an attack -- or lack thereof -- could defining the future of warfare. to date, the u.s. response to cyber attacks has been tepid at best and nonexistent at worse. unless and until the president uses the authorities he has to defer, deter, defend, and respond to the growing number of severity of cyber attacks, we will risk not just one more of the same but embolden adversaries and terrorist organizations that will continuously pursue more severe and destructive cyber attacks. as admiral mike rogers, the commander of u.s. cyber command, told listeners at the aspen security forum a couple of weeks ago, "to date there's little praise to pay for engaging in some pretty aggressive

behaviors." according to mr. clapper, "we will see an expansion of that envelope until such time as we create such a psychology of deterrence. today we don't have that." according to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, "our militar our milita significant advantage in every domain except for one, cyberspace." as he said, "cyber is a level playing field and that makes this chairman very uncomfortable." efforts are currently under way to begin addressing some of our strategic shortfalls in cyberspace, including the training of a 6,200-person cyber force. however, these efforts will be meaningless unless we make the tough policy decisions to establish meaningful cyber deterrents. the president must take steps now to determine straight to our adversaries that the united states takes cyber attacks

seriously and is prepared to respond. this legislation before us is one piece of that overall deterrent strategy, and it's long past due -- time that congress move forward on information-sharing legislation. voluntary information-sharing framework in this legislation is critical to addressing these threats and ensuring that the mechanisms are in place to identify those responsible for costly and crippling cyber attacks and ultimately deter future attacks. many of us have spent countless hours crafting and debate being cyber legislation -- debating cyber legislation back to 2012. 2012012 was the last time we attempted to pass major cyber legislation. this body has come a long way since that time. we neewe understand that we cannot improve our cyber posture by shackling our

country's critical infrastructure with government mandates. heavy-handed regulations and government bureaucracy will do more harm than good in cyberspace. the voluntary framework in this legislation represents the progress we have made in defining the role of the private sector and the role of the government in sharing threat information, defending networks, and deterring cyber attacks. this legislation also complements actions we've seen in the national defense authorization act, or ndaa, currently in conference with the house. as chairman of the armed services committee, cybersecurity is one of my top priorities. that's why the ndaa includes a number of critical cyber provisions designed to ensure the department of defense has the capabilities it needs to deter aggression, defend our national security interests, and when called upon defeat our adversaries in cyberspace.

the ndaa authorizes the secretary of defense to develop, prepare, coordinate, and when authorized by the president conduct a military cyber operation in response to malicious cyber activities carried out b against the united states. the ndaa also authorizes $200 million for the secretary of defense to assess the cyber vulnerabilities of every major d.o.d. weapons system. finally, congress required the congress to submit a policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace in the fiscal year 2014 ndaa. we're still waiting on that policy and in year's ndaa includes funding restrictions that will remain in place until it's delivered. every day that goes by i fear our nation grows more vulnerable. our privacy and security are at

greater risk and our adversaries are further emboldened. these are the stakes, and that's why it's essential that we come together and pass the cybersecurity information-sharing afnlg act. i'd like to thank again my friend from florida, who is a valued member of the senate armed services committee, for his indulgence to allow me to speak. i thank my colleague. i yield the floor. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i rise to announce my decision on the iranian nuclear agreement. the joint comprehensive plan of action. this decision of mine comes after considerable study of the issue, as have our colleagues in the senate taken this quite seriously. i have talked with folks on all sides of the issue. these include colleagues as well

as constituents. it includes experts on the middle east and central asia, arms control experts, foreign allies, and as we say in my constituency, it includes just plain folks. i want to say that secretary moniz, a nuclear physicist, has been especially helpful. needless to say, i wish that the three americans jailed in iran and bob levinson, a former f.b.i. agent missing in iran for rateight years, i wish they had been a part of this agreement to return them. the levinson family in florida is anxious for information and

help to return bob. this is personal for me. i'm a strong supporter of israel, mr. president, and i recognize that country as one of america'america's most importan. i am committed to the protection of israel as the best and right foreign policy for the u.s. and our allies. and, mr. president, i am blessed to represent florida, which also has among our citizens a strong and vibrant jewish community, including many holocaust survivors and holocaust victims' families, some of whom i have worked with to help them get just compensation from european insurance companies which turned

their back on them after world war ii and would not honor their insurance claims. in our state, we're also proud to have a floridian, a former u.s. and miami beach resident, as the israeli ambassador to the u.s. ambassador ron durmer grew up in miami beach. his father and brother are former mayors. he is someone i've enjoyed getting to know and have had several conversations over the years and recently spent time talking to him about his opposition to this joint agreement. i acknowledge that this has been one of the most important preparations and will be one of the most important votes that i will cast in the senate because

of the foreign and defense policy consequences, both huge for the u.s. and our allies. and unless there is an unexpected change in the conditions and facts before the vote is called in september -- and it will be called on the very first day that we return in september -- unless there is an unexpected change, i will support the nuclear agreement between iran and the p-5 plus 1, which are the u.s., u.k., france, russia, china, and germany, because i am convinced it will stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years. no other available alternative

accomplishes this vital objective. the goal of this almost two-year negotiation culminated in this deal, the goal was to deny iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. this objective has been fulfilled in the short-term. for the next ten years, iran will reduce its centrifuges, the machines that enrich the uranium, by two-thirds. they'll go from more than 19,000 centrifuges to 6,000. only 5,000 of those will be operating, all at natanz, all the most basic models. the deeply buried fordow

facility will be converted to a research facility. no fissile material can be stored there. for the next 15 years, iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which currently amounts to 12,000 kilograms, enough for ten bombs, will be reduced by 98% to only 300 kilograms. research and development into advanced centrifuges will also be limited. and, taken together, these constraints will lengthen the time it would take for iran to produce a highly enriched uranium for one bomb -- the so-called breakout time. it will reduce it from two to

three months that they could break out now to more than one year. that is more than enough time to detect and, if necessary, stop iran from racing to a bomb. iran's ability to produce a bomb using plutonium will also be blocked under this deal. the iraq reactor, which is currently constructed, could produce enough plutonium for one to two bombs every year. it will be redesigned to produce no weapons-grade plutonium, and iran will have to ship out the spent fuel from the reactor forever. iran signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in 196, i-- in 1968, in which they agred

they would not pursue nuclear weapons. iran has re-aforme reaffirmed ts principle in this joint agreement. iran also says they want to eventually make low-grade nuclear fuel, as other n.p.t.-compliant nations do, in order to produce electricity. if they comply, they will eventually be allowed to do so under this joint agreement. and our expectation is that in 15 years, when iran can lift the limit of 300 kilograms of low enriched uranium, if they not have cheated, they will continue to abide by their n.p.t. obligations and use their fuel only for electricity and medical isotopes. if they deviate from those

civilian purposes, then harsh economic sanctions will result, and very possibly u.s. military action. mr. president, the world will be a very different place in 10-15 years. if we can buy this much time instead of iran developing a nuclear bomb in the near future, then that is reason enough for me to vote to uphold this agreement. and if the u.s. walks away from this multinational agreement, then i believe we would find ourselves alone in the world with little credibility. but there are many more reasons to support this agreement. the opponents of the agreement say that war is not the only

alternative to the agreement. indeed, they as articulated by the israeli ambassador, say we should oppose attempt by refusing to lift congressionally imposed sanctions and the result will be that the international sanctions will stay in place, that iran will continue to feel the economic pinch, and therefore, iran will come back to the table and negotiate terms more favorable to the united states and our allies. but, mr. president, if the united states kills the deal that most of the rest of the world is for, there's no question in this senator's mind that the sanctions will start to erode and they may collapse altogether. we just had a meeting with all the p-5 plus 1 ambassadors to

the u.s., and they reaffirmed that exact fact. sanctions rely on more than just the power of the united states economy. they depend on an underlying political consensus in support of a common objective. china, russia, and many other nations eager to do business with iran went along with our economic sanctions because they believe they were temporary and a temporary cost to pay until iran agreed to a deal. that fragile consensus in support of u.s. policy is likely to fall apart if we jettison this deal. and so i think it's unrealistic to think that we can stop oil- hungry countries in asia

from buying iranian oil, especially when offered bargain basement prices. and it's equally unrealistic to think that we could continue to force foreign banks that hold the iranian oil dollars, banks in china, india, japan, south korea, and taiwan, that have sequestered the iranian oil dollars, it's unrealistic to expect that they will hold onto that cash simply because we threatened them with u.s. banking sanctions. how will such threats be taken seriously when those countries, taken together, hold nearly half of america's debt, making any decision to sanction them extraordinarily difficult?

so killing this deal by us rejecting it means that the sanctions are going to be weaker than they are today, not stronger. and the united states cannot simply get a better deal with iran with less economic leverage and less international support. that is a fact that we are having to face. and, of course, if we rejected it and if the sanctions crumbled, all of this would probably happen while iran would be racing to build a bomb. without this deal, iran's breakout time could quickly -- quickly shrink for months to a handful of weeks or days. it's reasonable to ask why iran would agree to negotiate a delay

in their nuclear program that they've advanced over the years at the cost of billions of dollars. the simple answer is they need the money. the iranian economy is hurting because the sanctions and iran's supreme leader needs to satisfy rising expectations of average iranians who are restless to have a bigger slice of the economic pie with more and better goods and supplies. so they have an interest in striking a deal. but does that mean we trust iran's government? no. not at all. the iranian leadership -- the iranian religious leadership encourages the hard-liners there

to chant death to america and death to israel. therefore, this agreement can't be built on trust. we must have a good enough mechanism in place to catch them when and if they cheat. in other words, don't trust but verify. i believe the agreement sets out reasonable assurance that iran will not be able to hide the development of a bomb at declared or undeclared sites. the international atomic energy agency inspectors will have immediate access to declared sites -- the nuclear reactor, the facilities at natanz and latordo, and the next 20 to 25

years inspectors will have access to the entire supply chain including iranian mines and mills and centrifuge facility, and storage sites. that means inspectors will catch iran if they try to use the facilities we know about to build a weapon or if they try to divert materials to a secret program. and to confirm that iran is not building a covert bomb, this agreement ensures that inspectors will have access to suspicious sites with no more than a 24-day delay. now, i know there's been a lot of conversation about that. it is broken off into days. at the end of the day it must be

a physical access -- now, would this senator prefer that they get in instantaneously? of course. could iran hide some activities relevant to nuclear weapons research? possibly. but to actually make a bomb, iran's secret activity would have to enrich the fuel for a device, and they couldn't cover that up if they had years, let asewn in a few weeks. traces of an enriched uranium or a secret plutonium program do not suddenly vanish and cannot be covered up with a little paint and asphalt. so i'm convinced under the agreement that iran cannot cheat and expect to get away with it.

but on top of this unprecedented iaea inspections sustained by this deal, is the vast and little-understood world of american and allied intelligence. this senator served on the intelligence committee for six years, and now has clearances on the armed services committee. i can the state up unequivocally u.s. intelligence is good and very extensive and will overlay the iaea inspections. remember, we discovered their secret activities in the past even without the kinds of inspections put in place by this joint agreement. so if iran tries to violate its commitment, its commitment not

to build nuclear weapons, and if the iaea doesn't find out, i am confident our intelligence apparatus will. well, what about the part of the joint agreement that allows the conventional arms embargo to be lifted in five years and missile technology to be lifted in eight years? i understand that it was always going to be tough to keep these restrictions in place, and i don't like it. that those restrictions cannot there. but fortunately even when the arms embargo expires, future other nations' resolutions passed and in 2014 will be in place to prohibit iran from exporting arms to terrorists and

to militants. these have had some questions, albeit limited, as in the case of the u.s. navy stopping arms shipments to the huthis in yemen. these same u.n. resolutions will stay in place to block future iranian arms shipments to others. we also have nonnuclear sanctions tools we can and we must continue to use to go after that traffic in iranian arms and missiles. well, mr. president, will this agreement allow iran to continue to be a state sponsor of terrorism? yes. but they now have the capability to develop a nuclear weapon within months and still be a state sponsor of rests.

-- terrorists. ideal it is in the united states' interests to not have them sponsor a nuclear terrorist. as big a danger as iran is to israel and to our ral lies, it would pale in comparison to the threat to them and to us by a nuclear armed iran. would i prefer a deal that dismantles their entire program forever and ends all of iran's bad behavior? of course i would. but how do we get a better deal that the opposition wants, if the negotiations fall apart and that is exactly what would happen if we reject this deal. iran will emerge less isolated

and less constrained to build a nuclear weapon. under the deal, we keep most of the world with us. that means if the iranians cheat, they know that we can snap back the economic sanctions and cut off their old money. this agreement declares that iran will never, ever be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. if they break their agreement in 10 or 15 years, financial will be available to us at these options will be available for capability and more and better intelligence intelligence. for the things for and against

the agreement, it becomes pretty obvious to me to vote in favor of the agreement. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, our government was recently struck by devastating cyber attack that's been described as one of the worst breaches in u.s. history. it was a major blow to the privacy of millions of americans. we know that the private sector is vulnerable to attack as well. the house has already passed two white house-backed cybersecurity bills to help address the issue. similar legislation is now before the senate. it's strong, bipartisan, and transparent. it's been vetted and overwhelmingly endorsed 14-1 by both parties in committee. it would help both the public and private sector's defeat of cyber attacks. the top senate democrat on this issue reminds us that it would protect individual privacy and

civil liberties, too. now is the time to allow the senate to debate and then pass this bipartisan bill. in just a moment, i'll offer a fair consent agreement to allow the senate to do just that. the democratic leader previously said that both he and the senior senator from oregon believe the senate should be able to finish the bill -- quote -- "in a couple of days at the most" -- end quote. and just today he said that democrats remain willing to proceed to this bipartisan bill if allowed to offer some relevant amendments. the senior senator from new york has also said that democrats want to get to the bill and that they want to get a few amendments, too. our friends across the aisle will be glad to know that the u.c. i am about to offer would allow ten relevant amendments per side to be offered and made pending. that's a good and fair start that exceeds the request from

our friends across the aisle. now that we have a path forward that gives both sides what they said they need, i would invite our colleagues to join us now in moving forward on this bill. i'd invite our colleagues to allow the senate to cooperate in a spirit of good faith to pass a bill this week so that we can help protect the american people from more devastating cyber attacks. so, mr. president, i have notified the democratic leader that i would propound the following consent agreement: i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to calendar number 28, s. 754, be withdrawn and that the senate immediately proceed to its consideration. i further ask that senator burr then be recognized to offer the burr-feinstein substitute amendment and that it be in order during today's session of the senate, for the bill

managers, or their designees to offer up to ten first-degree amendments relevant to the substitute per side. the presiding officer: +sthr objection? mr. reid: reserving the right to object, mr. president -- the presiding officer: the minority leader leader. mr. reid: the republican leader is my friend, and i don't mean to in any way disparage h him, other than bring out a little bit of history here. i can't imagine how he could make this offer with a straight face. have amendments pending? that's like nothing. we've tried that before, as recently as the highway bill. those -- having amendments pending doesn't mean anything. we want to pass a good cybersecurity bill. we have a bill that's been crafted in the intelligence committee. other committees have been

interested in participating in what we have here on the floor. but they have -- they are willing to say, okay, we have a bill from the intelligence committee. there have been no public committee hearings, no public markups. there has been no -- nothing done other than a rule 14, which of course my friend said he wasn't going to do if he got to be the leader. and he said there would be a robust amendment process. having a robust amendment process has nothing to do with having amendments pending. we want to pass a good bill. we want to have a reasonable number of amendments, and there will be votes on those amendments. we're not asking for long time agreements. the republican leader's proposal wouldn't lead to votes on the amendments. he would allow them -- the amendments to be pending. but if the republican leader were to file cloture, as he's done repeatedly the last few

months -- an example is he just did on the recent highway bill -- all amendments that were not strictly germane would fall. remember, we're not asking for germane amendments. we're asking for relevant amendments. we're willing to enter into an agreement that provides votes on these reasonable number of amendments that would be germane in nature, and we should be working on that agreement. in contrast, if we fail to get that agreement, mr. president, we're going to have a cloture vote an hour after we come in not morning, 30 hours after that sometime late thursday afternoon, early thursday evening, we would have a vote on that. when we get back here, we have the 8th until the 17th, including weekends and a holiday that we all -- that is celebrated every year that we always take off here, which includes two days -- a jewish

holiday. so, mr. president, i can't imagine why we would want this to interfere with what we're trying to do on the -- in the month of september. we are willing to do this bill. we could start working on these amendments right now, if we can have votes on that. but we're not going to agree to some arrangement like this. if the republican leader is going to push this, we can come in here tomorrow, we'll vote, the 30 hours will go by -- and we know how to use 30 hours; we were taught how to do that -- 30 hours of postcloture time. and thursday afternoon, the leader can make whatever decision is necessary. we want a cyber bill. this bill is not the feignic phf all cyber bills. but it certainly is better than nothing. we should, following the recommendation and suggestion what the republican leader has said he would do, is be allowed some amendments to vote on. we could start that today.

today is tuesday. we could finish these amendmen amendments. i would hope, on the democratic side, we could do it in a fairly short order of time. on the republican side, i don't know. all i heard following the caucuses, one republican senator wanted to offer an amendment on the cyber bill dealing with auditing the fed. i can't imagine why that has anything twod this bill. so -- anything to do with this bill. so we're serious about this legislation. we want to do something that is good nor thi for this country, r the order of the senate. otherwise we'll just look at each other until thursday afternoon. and this will be the first thing we can take up when we get back in september. we're willing to be fair and reasonable, to finish this in a -- with our amendments in a very short period of time. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: yes, mr. president, let me just say,

i think there may well be a way forward here. what i thought i heard the democratic leader say is, they're interested in passing a bill -- that's important. he said when it was offered on the defense authorization bill that it was a two-day bill and that we could agree to a limited number of agreements. i think -- amendments. i think we both agree this is an important subject. i can't imagine that either the democrats or the republicans want to leave here for a month and not pass a cybersecurity bill. i think there's enough interest on bodg both sides to try to coe to discuss the matter and see if there's a way forward. it would be the best interests. country if we could come together and do this. this bill came out of the intelligence committee 14-1. chairman burr and vice chair feinstein are anxious.

they've been asking for floor time, anxious to move this bill across the floor, and i'm hoping that the democratic leader and myself can continue to discuss the matter and that we can find a way forward. mr. reid: mr. president, i look forward to that discussion -- the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: keep in mind, being reported out of committee, this is a committee that holds everything in secret. they do nothing secret. so having a 14-1 vote in a meeting that takes place in secret doesn't really give the other senators o not on that committee a lot of solace. so i look forward to the republican leader and me and our staffs working together to try to come up with some way to move forward on this legislation. we want to do that. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: as my good friend, the democratic leader, used to always remind me, the majority leader always gets the last word. this is not a new issue. it was around during the

previous congress. other committees acted. other committee chairmen like what chairman burr and vice chair feinstein have done. hopefully we can minimize sort of manufacturing problems here that keep us from going forward, when it appears to me that both sides really would like to get an outcome and believe it would be best for the can unto get an outcome -- for the country to get an outcome before we go into the recess. so we'll continue to discuss the matter and hope that we can find a way forward.

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i'm going to be very brief. i understand that there has already been an objection, and i am going to speak later in the afternoon and the early evening in some detail about why i have significant reservations with respect to this legislation. to say as we've heard again and again throughout the day that this is about voluntary information sharing is essentially only half true. the fact is, companies could volunteer to share their customers' information with the government but they wouldn't

have to ask their customers' permission before handing it over. that's one reason why every major organization with expertise and interest on privacy issues has had reservations about the bill. it may be voluntary for companies, but it's mandatory for their customers and their consumers. they're not given the opportunity to opt out. now, the legislation has been public for months, and dozens of cybersecurity experts have said that it wouldn't do much to stop sophisticated large-scale attacks like the horrendous attack at the office of personnel management. on friday the department of homeland security, an absolutely essential agency as it relates to this bill, said in a letter to our colleague,

the distinguished senator from minnesota, senator franken, the department of homeland security said -- and i quote -- "if this bill's approach is adopted, the complexity and inefficiency of any information sharing program will markedly increase" -- unquote and the department of homeland security added that the bill, again, -- and i quote -- "could sweep away important privacy protections." that is a pretty strong indictment from the agency that would be in charge of implementing the legislation. now, as i've indicated a couple of times in the last day or so, i think the managers, senator feinstein and senator burr, have made several positive changes, but the bottom line is it doesn't address the very

substantial privacy concerns that relate to this bill. the fact of the matter is that cybersecurity is a very serious problem in america. oregonians know a lot about it because one of our large employers was hacked by the chinese. they were hacked by the chinese because they insisted on enforcing their rights under trade law. in fact, our government indicted the chinese for the hack of my constituents and others. so cybersecurity is a serious problem. information sharing can play a constructive role here, but information sharing without robust privacy safeguards is really not a cybersecurity bill, it's going to be seen by millions of americans as a surveillance bill. and that's why it's so important

that there be strong privacy guidelines. and the fact is in the managers' legislation, the section allowing companies to hand over large volumes of information with only a cursory review would be essentially unmodified. now, the department of homeland security asked for some specific changes to the language which the managers' amendment does not include. so my hope is that we are going to have a chance to have a real debate on this issue. i personally would rather go down a different route with respect to cybersecurity legislation, and particularly i think i would commend to this body senator leahy, our colleague from vermont, his very fine data breach bill.

but if senators really have their hearts set on doing the bill before us, it's going to need some very substantial amendments both to ensure that we show the american people that security and privacy are not mutually exclusive, that we can do both, and to address the very serious operational reservations that the department of homeland security has raised. neither set of concerns is thoroughly addressed by the managers' amendment. so my hope is, mr. president, that we are going to have a chance to make some very significant reforms in this legislation. the proposition where millions of americans are saying -- looking at what's happened in the last few weeks, that the government isn't doing an

exactly an ideal job in securing the data that it has, and now we're going to propose legislation that has private companies without the permission of their customers, for example, to dump large quantities of their customers' data over to the government with only a cursory review is not going to be very attractive to millions of americans who send us here to represent them. and, in fact, just in the last few days i've read in the media that some of the opponents of this legislation have sent something like six million taxes to -- faxs to the senate, and people wonder if there are still fax machines, it's important as we look at the digital age what the challenge is. i'll have more to say about this

late in the afternoon and in the evening but i wanted to take this opportunity since we've just gotten out of the party caucuses to make some corrections with respect to what we were told this morning particularly with regard to how this is a voluntary bill. ask millions of americans whether it's voluntary when companies can hand over their private information to the government without their permission. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask to be recognized as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you. the topic of cybersecurity is a critically important one but i come to the floor to talk for a bit about one of the most

consequential decisions i as a member of the united states senate and my colleagues will make and that's the topic of concern of the negotiated agreement between the p-5 and iran, the protest joint comprehensive plan of action with iran. in my view, it provides too much relief in return for too few concessions. the deal implicitly concedes that iran will become a nuclear power and will gain the ability and legitimacy to produce a weapon in a matter of years. while gaining wealth and power in the meantime. i serve on the senate banking committee. the sanctions that were created by congress originate from that committee. those sanctions were put in place to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear power, a

nuclear-capable country of delivering a nuclear weapon across their border. those sanctions were not put in place to create a path, a guideline by which iran could become a nuclear weapon-capable country. the key is keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of iran's government and the key to that is keeping nuclear weapons permanently -- the capacity, to permanently disable iran and use the technology to produce nuclear materials. this deal fails to achieve this goal by allowing iran to retain nuclear facilities. those -- though some of it will be limited in the near term, if centrifuges will not be -- the centrifuges will not be destroyed. this deal allows iran's program to be on standby. also troubling is the lack of restrictions on research and

development. iran seeks to replace its current enrichment technologies with advanced centrifuge that more efficient wily enriches nuclear material. by failing to restrict research and development now we are priming the program to hit the ground running towards a bomb when the sanctions are lifted in a matter of years. also the inspection regime agreed to in this negotiation is dangerously accommodating. the agreement provides iran a great deal of flexibility regarding inspection of material sites just like the cast work with covert work took place. it allows iran to hold concerned inspectors at bay for weeks if not for months before granting access to a location suspected of being a site for nuclear development. the value of any access to suspected iranian nuclear sites

that international inspectors ultimately do receive will depend upon their understanding of iran's broadcast nuclear weapons research. a comprehensive disclosure of possible military dimensions to iran's nuclear research is necessary to understand iran's current infrastructure and is critical to their ability to rule out any future efforts to produce nuclear weapons. the international atomic energy agency, iaea, has not made public its side agreement with iran about their previous nuclear developments. this isn't an -- an aside none of us should agree to this negotiated agreement without seeing, reading, knowing the content of that agreement. under the proposed deal, that vital full disclosure of iran's past may not occur, diminishing the value of inspections and increasing the risk of a covert weaponization of iran will take place. painfully absent from the

agreement's requirements are iran's release of american hostages. indeed abedini, jason razziany, the freedom of americans should have been a condition for relief instead of an afterthought. in return for very limited concessions, this deal gives iran way too much. if implemented, the agreement would give iran near complete sanction relief up front. consequence tells us this isn't a republican or democrat issue, consequence tells us you don't give away your leverage until you get the result that you're looking for. and this agreement provides sanction relief up front, delivering billions in frozen assets to the iranian government and boosting the iranian economy. included are sanctions related to iran's revolutionary guard

corps which were to be lifted only when iran ceased providing support for international terrorism. the sanctions relief in this proposal not only failed to require preconditions and cooperation regarding nuclear disarmament but were removed sanctions from the iranian guard despite their status as a top supporter of terrorist groups around the middle east and globe. this type of gratuitous flexibility for inis found elsewhere in the agreement. the p-5 plus 1 accept taps of the relaxed arms embargo is scary. this deal would relax trading in missiles while immediately erasing limits on missile research and development. it would lift restrictions on iranian centrifuge use after just 8-10 years. it grants iran the ability to more efficiently produce

material as it gains the delivery weapons system. earlier this month the joint chiefs of staff colonel martin democrats dempsey said under no circumstances should we release pressure on iran. western diplomats had said lifting the arms embargo was -- quote -- "out of the question." yet one week later negotiators announced the lifting of the embargo in five years or less. i wonder what has changed. the menace of arms flowing in and out of iran decreased, and the capitulation should have us all concern. the increased money flowing to terrorist groups is not nearly an outside possibility. it is a likelihood. last week iran's deputy foreign

minister said -- quote -- "whenever it's needed to send arms to our allies in the region, we will do so. more money and more weapons in the hands of a terrorist organization are the fuel for further violence in the conflict torn middle east. we will have little reason to believe that iran's behavior will change as a result of this agreement and, in fact, their chants of death to america become more real. since the denouncement of the agreement the leader of iran has been openly antagonistic to the united states. the ayatollah khameini has continued to cite unrest and said iran's policy toward the arrogant u.s. will not change. these anti-american statements come from an iranian leader whose commitment the obama administration is relying on for a nuclear accord to work. it should trouble every american that the imoamed -- the obama

administration is asking us to support a deal that relies on the total cooperation of those who, as i say, strongly say and state their commitment, "death to america." given the obama administration's troubling efforts to immediately push through the deal, this deal through the united nations and restrict the influence of the american people through this congress in the decision, it is all the more important that we follow through with a serious assessment of this nuclear agreement. we are faced with a circumstance that by the administration's own previous standards concedes too much and secures too little. i strongly, strongly oppose this deal. it's intolerably risky and the result is a new iran, a legitimized nuclear power with a growing economy and enhanced means to finance terror, to antagonize and ultimately pursue a nuclear weapons program. i will support the congressional resolution to express congress's explicit disapproval.

president obama has said and used fear in his agenda in seeking our support for this agreement. the warning has been that a vote against his policy is a vote for war with iran. the president's political scare tactics are not only untrue but also illogical. incidentally, we were not at war with iran when the agreements were in place before the negotiation. the absence of agreeing to these negotiated, this negotiated agreement would not mean we're at war thereafter. his claims undermine numerous statements his own administration has made about the negotiations process, the nature of the iranian nuclear program and the proposed agreement prospects for success. if true, the president's word concede his foreign policy led america into a dangerous position. we would expect the president to provide the american people as many alternatives to war as possible, not just a single,

narrow, risky one such as this agreement. according to the president, the only alternative to war is this agreement, a deal that results in better financed terrorists, a weakened arms embargo and need for boosting u.s. weapons sales to iran's regional rivals. if this prospect of war is his concern, the president would benefit by reevaluating the geopolitical consequences of the deal and seeking out much better options. i had hoped that these negotiations would result in a strong but fair deal that dismantled iran's nuclear infrastructure. again, the purpose of placing sanctions on iran was to get rid of their nuclear capability as far as its delivery of nuclear material across their borders, and yet this agreement leaves that infrastructure in place and puts them on a promising path toward that nuclear capability. regrettably, that kind of deal

was not reached. now it's my hope -- it's a simple one -- that we are able to reverse some of the damage that's already done and that this agreement is rejected. i would say, mr. president, that there are those who argue we would be isolated by rejection of this agreement, that other countries would approve. the united nations may approve. this is an issue of such importance that we need to do everything possible to see that iran does not become a nuclear power and we need to have the moral character and fiber to say no to this agreement. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, across our country today so many of our workers clock in for 40 hours a

week. they work really hard, and yet they are unable to provide for their families. just last fall nbc news interviewed a woman named la toya who works at a fast food restaurant. she was protesting as part of a fast food workers strike. la toya is raising four children alone on less than $300 a week and it is well below the poverty line for her and her family. for part of last year she was living in a homeless shelter. she told the reporter -- and i quote -- "nobody should work 40 hours a week and find themselves homeless." on top of those rock-bottom wages, latoya said she and her colleagues experienced unpaid wages, unpredictable scheduling and having to make do with broken equipment on the job. you know, in today's economy, too many of our workers across the country face the same challenges as latoya. they are underpaid, they are overworked, and they are treated

unfairly on the job. in short, mr. president, they lack fundamental economic security. several places around the country and in my home state of washington, we're working to address this at the local level, and i believe we need to bring the washington state way here to washington, d.c. here in congress i believe we need to act to give workers some much-neeppedded relief. -- much-needed relief. we need to grow our economy from the middle out, not the top down. and we should make sure our country works for all americans, not just the wealthiest few. and, mr. president, there is no reason that we can't get to work today on legislation to do just that. that is why i have joined with my colleagues over the past few months in introducing several bills that will help restore some much-needed economic security and stability to millions of workers. and it's why i'm hoping that we can move some of these bills forward before we all go back

home to our states. mr. president, for too long we've heard from some republicans the theory, which is a deeply flawed theory, that if we would only grant more tax cuts to the wealthiest americans and if we would just keep rolling back regulations on the biggest corporations, those businesses -- those benefits would eventually trickle down and reach working families in our country. well, not only does that theory not work as we've seen over the past few decades, that trickle-down system has done real damage to our nation's middle class and our working families. well, worker productivety has reached new heights, workers have lost basic protections they once had. and while trickle-down economics allowed big corporations to post massive profits, too many of our workers are paying the price. let me give some examples. today the federal minimum wage can leave a family in poverty, even after working full time and

even without taking a single day off. but it's not only that. today some businesses are using unfair scheduling practices to keep workers guessing about when they're going to be called in to work and with no guarantee of how much money they will earn in a given week. those kinds of scheduling abuses take a real toll on workers' lives and prevent them from getting ahead. attending college classes is not an option when someone's work schedule is always in flux, taking on a second job to earn more money is nearly impossible when you can't plan around your first job. and that's not all. right now 43 million workers in this country today don't have paid sick leave. so when they get sick, they have to choose between toughing it out at work and passing that illness on to others or staying home and potentially losing their job. when their child is sick, they have to choose between losing money out of a paycheck or missing out on caring for their

son or daughter. and if all that wasn't enough in our country, women are paid just 78 cents for every $1 a man makes. that's not just unfair to women, by the way. it is bad for families and it hurts our economy. mr. president, many businesses are doing the right thing and they do support their workers. but other corporations that don't put those businesses who are doing the right thing at a competitive disadvantage by running a race to the bottom and pulling their workers down with them. this worker insecurity isn't just devastating for the millions of workers and their families who are impacted by it, it also is hurting our economy. truly robust and strong economic growth comes from the middle out, not the top down. so when our workers lack security, when they are not treated fairly, they can't invest in themselves and their children and spend money in their communities or move their families into a middle-class

life. i believe we have to address this challenge on multiple fronts and that we can start by making sure that our workers are treated fairly and can earn their wage -- earn their way toward rising wages and increased economic security. and there are important things we can do right here in congress to expand economic security and stability for millions of our working families today. for starters we should pass the paycheck fairness act that the senior senator from maryland has championed for so many years to finally close the pay gap between men and women. the paycheck fairness act would tackle pay discrimination head on, and i hope we can all agree that in the 21st century workers should be paid fairly for the work they do regardless of their gender. we should also raise the minimum wage to make sure hard work does pay off. my raise the wage act increased the minimum wage to $12.2020 is

enough to lift a family of three out of poverty. it will put more money in workers' pockets so they can spend it in their local communities. it will help to build a strong floor, a federal minimum that workers in cities can build off of and go even higher where it makes sense like in seattle and my home state of washington, and it's a level that republicans should be able to agree we can start moving towards right now. mr. president, i've also worked on a bill along with senators warren and murphy to crack down on schedule abuses so businesses would no longer keep their workers guessing on when they might be called in or how many hours they'll be given in a week. in february i introduced the healthy families act to allow workers to earn up to seven paid sick days and i want to move forward on that legislation to give our workers some much-needed economic security because no one should have to sacrifice a day's pay or their

job altogether just to take care of themselves when they're sick or their sick child. and we as a nation should not turn our backs on empowering workers through collective bargaining especially because strong unions make sure workers have a voice at the table. and that's the very thing that helps so many workers climb into the middle class in this country. mr. president, enacting these critical policies won't solve every problem. facing our workers and families today. and they're not the only way that i and other senate democrats will be fighting for to protect workers and make sure the economy is growing from the middle out, not the top down. but these policies would be very strong steps in the right direction to bring back that american dream of economic security and a stable middle-class life for millions of workers who have seen it slip away. when workers succeed, businesses succeed. and then the economy succeeds. and we know this works. i've seen it in my home state of washington where state and local governments have already taken the lead on proposals like

raising the minimum wage and paid sick days. and i think it's time to bring some of that washington state way right here to washington, d.c. i recently heard from a small business owner by the name of laura. she owns a small auto repair shop in renton, washington and she shared something i hear all the time from business owners. doing the right thing by workers starts a virtuous cycle. laura said -- and i quote -- "when workers have more money, businesses have more customers. and with more customers, businesses can hire more workers which in turn generates more customers." mr. president, working families in our country have been waiting long enough for some relief from a trickle-down system that hurts the middle class. that's why i'm going to be asking for unanimous consent to work on the policies that would restore economic security and stability to more workers. let's finally restore some stability and security for workers across our country. let's make sure that hard work

pays off and let's help more families make ends meet, expand economic opportunity and grow our economy from the middle out. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for three minutes and then followed immediately by the senator from idaho. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, what is the -- before that, is the parliamentary procedure was that there was an objection to the senate moving forward with the consideration of the cyber bill? is that correct? the presiding officer: there was an objection that was heard to the request of the majority leader. mr. mccain: i see. well, mr. president -- mrs. murray: mr. president, if i could just ask -- mr. mccain: do i have the floor, mr. president? the presiding officer: yes, sir, the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i have the floor i tell the senator from washington. mr. president, this is

unbelievable. it is unbelievable that this body would not move forward with a cyber bill with the situation of dire consequences and dire threats to the united states of america. admiral rogers told listeners at the aspen security forum, "to date there is little praise to pay for engaging in some pretty aggressive behaviors." according to james clapper, the director of national intelligence, "we will see a progression or expansion of that until such time as we create the substance and psychology of deterrence of and today we don't have that. " the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general derch d, "our military maintains military advantage in every domain except for one -- cyberspace." the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is uncomfortable about the siewsh threats to this nation which just took place where millions, millions of americans had their privacy

hacked into. god only knows what the consequences of that are. and the other side has decided to object to proceeding with a bill n.a.s.ed through the intelligence committee by a vote of 14-1. this is disgraceful. this is disgraceful, and i tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, by blocking this amendment, you are putting the nation in danger by blocking this legislation. you're putting this nation in danger by not allowing the senate of the united states to act against a very real threat to our very existence. so i say, mr. president, this is a shameful day in the united states snavmen senate. i urge the democratic ladder to come to the floor -- the democratic leader to come to the floor and alo allow us to move forward with this legislation because the security of the united states of america is in daifnlgdanger. i thank my colleagues and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho.

senator do you have house resolution 3118 at the desk? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. risch: i ask that the senate proceed to consideration of house resolution 1138, which has been received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1138, an a ct to establish certain wilderness areas in central idaho and land conveyances in central idaho and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. are issue rsh i ask unanimousmrs consent that house resolution 1138 shall laid upon the table and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate and any statemented taxpayer in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection sno without objection. mr. risch: mr. president, today really is an historic day

for the state of idaho. this is the creation of a saw tooth area of idaho, the boulder white clouds area and the cherry peaks area. these have been under consideration for about ten years. and i want to talk just very briefly about what we're dealing with here. these are some of the most magnificent pieces of land not only in idaho but in the united states. before anyone goes abroad to see the shan somedaparis. what we did is created a wilderness of about 275,000 acres. that create these three wilderness areas plus a buffer zone around them.

and it is a great day for idea hoavment this is an idaho solution to an issue that has been pending for sometime. and i i i want to conclude by stating that all credit for this goes to congressman mike simpson. congressman simpson started working on this ten months ago and warchtsed to put together a wilderness bill for this particular area. he did that. he brought it back here to washington, d.c., and because of the situation here in d.c. at the time, the bill was changed greatly and was no longer an idaho solution to the idaho problem. congressman simpson didn't give up. he worked and he worked and he worked at it, and it is truly his long-term commitment to th this, his long work on this that got us to this point. what he did was take this land that was virtually unanimous

agreement should be in wilderness. that is the heart of this area. the boulder range, the white cloud range, and the jerry peaks area. there was unanimous agreement that this ised kind of land that needs to be in wilderness. when i was gone, i wrote this rule for several million acres and this was included in it and it was protected as wilderness so this isn't changing the character of it this n. that regard. it puts it in statute instead of in rule. the difficulty was, as always with these kinds of areas, is the buffer area around what everybody agrees is truly unique ground that should be handled as wilderness. and obviously it is an area that engrains passion in people, and it causes people to have strong feelings about the area. and, as a result of that, people fight to protect what they think should be protected and just as much people who use the buffer

zones for different reasons feel just as passionate lit other way. well, congres -- what congressmn was able to do is get everybody to the table. he got the wilderness preservationists the hikers, the backpackers, the horse people, the motorized users, including snowmobile and a.t.v. and mobile cycle people to all agree as to a management plan for everything that's included in this bill. congressman simpson was tenacious on this. and he gets the full credit for this, and i think that idaho -- idahoans will truly appreciate this for many, many years. there is no doubt in my mind that congressman simpson, the efforts that he put into this will be greatly appreciated for years and years to come. and with that, i want to yield the balance of my time to my colleague, my good friend from idaho, senator mike crapo.

mr. crapo: thank you, senator risch. mr. president, i rise today, and it is an honor for me to rise today with my colleague jim risch to celebrate the passage of this legislation. it has been years and years in the making. this legislation culminates from hard work by people all over idaho. senator risch has indicated that the credit for making this all finally come together goes to representative mike simpson, and i wholeheartedly agree with that. passage of the saw tooth national recreation area and jerry peak wilderness additions act, also called the snra-plus act, is the result of tremendous -- tremendous -- efforts by representative simpson and senator risch. he deserves tremendous credit as well. i do want to say that i honor representative simpson's dogged determination and his persistence to fight through many obstacles associated with this treasured region of our state. for a very long period of time. representative simpson's efforts

have given idaho a homegrown solution to what was rapidly becoming a national problem. as i said, similarly my colleague senator risch has fought through many challenges in his pursuit of developing a consensus on this issue that has been hard to achieve. both of my colleagues in their respective ways have expressed again the power of collaboration in the attempt to find consensus to deliver local solutions to long-standing public land management challenges in idaho. local governments and local stakeholders must be empowered to shape and manage decisions relating to our public lands. in the process, such efforts must respect private property rights and the owners of private property as well as other impacted stakeholders. such initiatives are never easy to achieve and consensus takes dedication, patience, and persistence.

for too long westerns have been saddled with top-down land management decisions that are both harmful to the landscape and to the people living in and subsisting off of our national natural treasures. the snra-plus is a win for idaho and an example of how local governments and interests can achieve solutions to some of the most persistent public land management issues we face today. now, i just have to conclude by saying that while we have succeeded today in passing a milestone here in congress, the focus must now shift to the hard work of successful implementation that will require commitment from the various federal agencies and all of the affected interests. again, i want to commend senator risch and representative simpson for their incredibly important work that has been accomplished today, and i thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. heller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sno senator from nevada. mr. heller: mr. president, thank you. and i want to congratulate my colleagues from idaho ton this particular -- on this particular piece of legislation, they've approve than it can be done right. a few weeks ago the president declared a monument in the state of nevada, the size of rhode island, with two koingtses that had no -- two counties that had no input in the process. the delegation had no input and the collaborative effort that you saw from idaho and how the system should work needs to be recognized. and what happened in nevada, i feel, was a disgrace, and it is a shame that we're standing here today with a monument in the state of nevada, the size of rhode island, with no input from nevada's delegation nor counties, just a single action made by one person. it is not why i'm here, mr. president, but it inspired me listening to my colleagues

from idaho. but i'd like to talk about personal privacy rights for the american citizens. it was just two months ago that the senate took action to restore privacy rights of american citizens through the u.s.a. freedom act, part of action that was taken, as i mentioned, just two months ago. both chambers of congress and the president agreed it was time to end bulk collection of america's call records into the federal government. it was a proud supporter of the u.s.a. freedom act wand believed it was the right -- act and believed it was the right thing to do on behalf of u.s. citizens. my constituents from across nevada all understand how important these rights are and will not accept any attempts to diminish them. today i am here to continue protecting these privacy rights and in upholding our civil liberties. protecting privacy will always be important to nevadans. it is nonnegotiable to me.

very important. like many of my colleagues in the senate, i also believe that addressing cybersecurity is also upon. when i was ranking member of the commerce committee's consumer protection exphiewt i worked on these issues in de-taism i understand very well the impact of data breaches, cyber threats. in fact, identity theft is one of the top concerns back in my state of nevada. not only can these identity thieves wreak financial havoc hon a consumer's life, but these threats also pose a serious national security concern. we saw with o.p. m.'s breach that personal information for 21.5 million federal employees, even those who received security clearances, was compromised. and in my office, in fact, a member of my staff was breached three times in just the last four years. these thieves cross international borders, they break and enter into private homes, they hack their way to

intrusion with a keyboard on the one hand a simple click of the mouse. so i share the desire to find a path forward on information-sharing between the federal government and the private sector as another tool in the cybersecurity toolbox. but i've always stood firm with these types of efforts that they must also maintain america's privacy rights. and the bill i see today, including the substitute amendment, does not do enough to ensure personally identifiable information is stripped out before shared rm. that's why i filed a fix. threat strengthen the standard for stripping out this information. right now this bill says that the private sector and the federal government only have to strip out personal information if they know -- if they know -- it's not directly related to a cyber threat. i'd like to offer some context to this. let's say you're pulled over for speeding, not knowing the speed limit does not be a solve you of

guilt. if your company fails to follow a federal law or regulation, not knowing about the law does not exempt from you the consequences of violating it. ignorance is no excuse under the law, so why should this particular piece of legislation be any different? my amendments assure that when personal information is being stripped out, it is because the entity reasonably believes -- not knows, but reasonably believes it is not related to a cyber threat. one of my amendments addresses the federal government's responsibility to do this and the other addresses the private sector's responsibility to do this. this term -- reasonably believes -- let me repeat that. rrnlreasonably believes is an important distinction in this bill needs. it creates a wider protection for personal information by ensuring these entities are making an effort to take out personal information that is not

necessary for cybersecurity. and our friends over in the house of representatives already agree that the private sector should be held to this standard, which is why they included this language in the cybersecurity bill which they passed. i hope to see this important protection retained in any conference agreement should this bill move forward. furthermore, in a letter to a senator last week, d.h.s. directly acknowledged the importance of removing personally identifiable information and even went so far to say this removal will allow the information-sharing regime to function much better. even d.h.s. agrees with this amendment it would function much better. so it comes down to, mr. president, is our nation's commitment to balancing the needs for sharing cybersecurity information with the need to protect america's personal information. i believe my amendment number

2548 to hold the federal government accountable strikes that balance and will continue strongly pushing forward to get this vote. i encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense effort to strengthen the bill, keep our commitment to upholding the rights of all united states citizens. as we discuss this issue, mr. president, i hope we'll continue having the opportunity to truly debate and make improvements to this bill. i believe if given the opportunity, we can strengthen this legislation even more to protect against cybersecurity threats while also protecting american citizens' private information. no bill is perfect, mr. president. you know that. but that's why we're here and that's why there is an amendment process. that is why i'd like to see the senate openly debate and amend this bill, including my amendment. the privacy rights of americans are too important an issue, a very important issue to all of us. now, mr. president, i acknowledge that some of my

colleagues want the opportunity to debate issues related to the bill, and those issues that are unrelated to the bill. i recognize there are many important issues members would like to see addressed before august, or at least the august recess, such as my friend from kentucky who filed an amendment regarding firearms on bases. and like my colleague, i recognize the importance of this issue, which is why i introduced this legislation days ago. my legislation would simply require the secretary of defense to establish a process for base commanders in the u.s. to authorize a service member to carry a concealed personal firearm while on base. men and women who serve our country deserve to feel safe and should be able to defend themselves while stationed in the united states. so i feel strongly that congress should give our nation's base commanders the authority they need to create a safer environment for our heroes serving across america. at this time i recognize that

it's unclear if there will be an opportunity to debate this issue on this particular piece of legislation, but, mr. president, it's an important issue. once again i hope as we continue to debate this bill that we will find a path forward on all amendments. i appreciate both senator burr and feinstein's willingness to work with me on my amendments and look forward to continuing this debate. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that 30 minutes be equally divided, the next 30 minutes be equally divided between schumer, boxer, whitehouse, markey, and schatz. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. whitehouse: mr. president? may i ask for a modification that i be able to speak for one minute on the cyber issue before we go into that 30 minutes, with

that modification i have no objection. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. whitehouse: i want to respond to what the senator from arizona said. we are very keen to get a good cyber bill passed. my concern about the amendment process is that amendments that will strengthen the bill and make it a better cyber bill ought to have a chance to get a vote. i have one that i worked out with senator graham, who i think has good national security credentials and who senator mccain respects, and another one with senator blunt, who i also have good national security credentials and who i think senator mccain also respects. i believe both of the bills have now been cleared by the u.s. chamber of commerce, so they don't have a business community objection. but i also fear that if we follow the majority leader's proposal, he filed cloture and they wouldn't survive a germaneness test. so i think the, so i think our leader's offer of a specific list of amendments, none of which are got which a amendments -- gotcha amendments, all which

relate to the bill would be a good way to proceed and get something passed. thank you. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: first, i thank my friend from rhode island. i think there's broad agreement -- i certainly do -- that we want to move to this bill and if given an agreement on a limited number of amendments all relevant to cybersecurity we can get this bill done. but it is only fair on a major bill to offer some amendments and not just to fill the treep and have no -- tree and have no amendments at all. on the issue at hand, i want to thank senators whitehouse and markey and schatz and boxer for speaking today and participating in this colloquy. i join my colleagues in appealing for meaningful action on climate change from this body, which thus far has been stymied by my friends on the other side of the aisle on behalf of special interests. and that is an absolute shame. climate change is one of the defining challenges of our time.

left unchecked, a changing climate and rising seas will threaten our shoreline cities and communities which i personally witnessed after super storm sandy buffetted new york. left unchecked a changing climate will have dramatic consequences for our children and grandchildren. pope fran sips said as much. he said climate change represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. we know we have to act. we know the american people want us to act. according to a "new york times" stan for -- stanford universityl 74% of americans asked said we need to do something about climate change. democrats agree, the federal government must do something. we tried to pass several bills through congress but my friends on the other side of the aisle blocked action time and time again. on behalf of the special

interests in the fossil fuel industry. now the president has a bold plan to reduce carbon emissions which he announced yesterday and today. but already the groups on the other side are marshaling their forces. "the new york times" reported today that fossil fuel lobbyists and corporate lawyers have been working since 2014, over a year and a half ago, to bring down these new rules. mr. president, some of these republicans admit that climate change is ream and the threat, yet they still block and block and block. my friend, with the distinguished majority leader, has urged governors across the country to simply ignore the new climate rules while they cook up lawsuits to delay and frustrate their implementation. okay, so you don't like the actions we propose or what the president proposes, fine. what do you propose, i say to those on the other side of the

aisle? what's your plan to meet this existential challenge? i've heard none. that's why this chart says wanted: a g.o.p. plan to combat climate change and reduce dangerous air pollution under the #whatsthegopclimate plan. there is none. look at the news, see the weather reports. ask scientists who are totally impartial say. unfortunately i have a funny feeling that our colleagues on the other side are using the same play book they're using on health care, immigration and a host of other issues. block, repeal, oppose but propose nothing. i conclude my brief remarks by repeating the question: what is the republican plan to being the a on climate change? let me ask again in case they didn't hear me. what is the republican plan to act on climate change?

let me suggest that my friends on the other side join us in seeking solutions on climate change rather than obstructing our efforts and the wishes of the american people on behalf of special interests. and again, i thank my colleagues for organizing this colloquy and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, what is the order in terms of times allocated? the presiding officer: 30 minutes have been allocated. each senator has about 6 minutes to speak. mrs. boxer: will the chair remind me when i've gone 5 minutes so i can wrap up? the presiding officer: the senator will be notified. mrs. boxer: thank you very much, mr. president. in its 2007 landmark decision called massachusetts vs. e.p.a., the united states supreme court found very clearly that carbon pollution is covered under the clean air act. now i think it's important to

note that the bush administration took the position that carbon pollution could not be covered under the clean air act, and they wasted about eight long years litigating the matter, and we lost a lot of time. but when the supreme court finally spoke out, this is what they said, and i quote from the decision. "because greenhouse gases fit well within the clean air act's definition of air pollutant, we hold that e.p.a. has the authority to regulate the emissions of such gases." following the supreme court decision, the obama administration issued an endangerment finding which showed that current and future concentrations of carbon pollution are harmful to our health. this finding built on the work of the bush administration, and we found some of the raw data from the bush administration, and we went public with it. this is what the endangerment finding said, among other

things. first, "severe heat waves are projected to intensify which can increase heat-related death and sickness. and, two, climate change is expected to worsen regional smog pollution which can cause decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, increased emergency room visits, and premature deaths." so once that endangerment finding was made, the clean air act clearly requires the environmental protection agency to act to control greenhouse gas pollution because it is determined that that pollution causes harm. now, i want to say when i still had the gavel -- could i ask my colleagues -- could i ask my colleagues to discuss that outside? thank you. when i still had the gavel of the environment and public works committee, we called four former

e.p.a. administrators who served under republican presidents from richard nixon to george w. bush. every single day one of those republicans called on us to act now to reduce carbon pollution. in that hearing, former e.p.a. administrator christie todd whitman who served under george w. bush, summed it up best. and i'm going to quote from her. and i know my friends remember this. she said "i have to begin by expressing my frustration with the discussion about whether or not the e.p.a. has the authority to regulate carbon emissions. the issue has been settled," she said. this is a former republican e.p.a. administrator under w. bush. "e.p.a. does have the authority," she said. "the law says so. the supreme court said so twice. that matter, i believe, should now be put to rest. given that fact, the agency has

decided properly that it should act now to reduce carbon emissions to improve the quality of our air, protect the health of our people, and as part of an international effort to address global climate change." now, i was so proud in that particular hearing because i haven't found a republican on the environment and public works committee who really even believes that climate change is real, to be honest. so to have a republican former head of the e.p.a. under george w. bush tell us it is time to move was vet heartening to me because i believe action can come too soon. the impacts that scientists predicted years ago, mr. president, are all around us, and they're happening now. i want to share a couple of charts. the prediction quite a while ago was that, that we were going to see extreme heat more frequently

all around the world. well, 2014 was the hottest year on record according to nasa-noaa, and 2015, the first half of this year is the hottest on record according to noaa. then heat waves are more frequent. in australia in 2014, towns 320 miles southwest of sydney had 118 degrees. the presiding officer: the senator has consumed five minutes. mrs. boxer: thank you. areas affected by drought increased. and look at what's happening in my great state. the worst drought, according to scientists, in 1,200 years. and fires increasing. same thing. and i just am so disheartened by the fact that we lost a fire firefighter, a visiting fire fighter who is fighting those fires right now and putting their lives on the line every

single day. tropical storms, hurricanes, this is all happening. heavy precipation, flooding events. houston got 11 inches of rain in 24 hours in 2015. and decreasing polar ice. in addition, rising sea levels. so i will close with this: the evidence of climate change is here, and to say you're not a scientist is no answer. we know you're not a scientist. politicians, as a group, are not. but we should listen to the 98%-99% of scientists who are telling uses ou us our plan setn trouble, our people are going to be in trouble. as long as i can stand up on my feet in this body, i am going to stand shoulder to shoulder -- well, not quite -- in my high heels, this is a moment in history when our kids w